Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

SEC has not approved Bitcoin ETFs [fixed]

twitter.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

401–410 of 518 posts

Re: SEC has not approved Bitcoin ETFs [fixed]

#401

Post by initplus »

okwubodu wrote: post #348
initplus wrote: post #247

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Bitcoin futures ETF's are already allowed - several exist and they track the BTC:USD rate relatively accurately. I'm not sure that a spot price ETF is really a huge breakthrough in terms of actual mechanics. But approval is an opportunity to create hype and buzz around cryptocurrency.

> several exist and they track the BTC:USD rate relatively accurately They are terrible assets with severe discount/premium swings reaching the high 40%s [0]. The ratio's only tightening now that a potential arbitrage opportunity is on the table. [0] https://ycharts.com/companies/GBTC/discount_or_premium_to_na...

GBTC is it's own weird separate thing, with a whole bunch of red flags. It's not yet an ETF. They don't even distribute the fund prospectus online, it's only available by email request.

Tracking for actual BTC futures ETF's is quite good. Arbitrary example: https://ycharts.com/companies/BITO/discount_or_premium_to_na...

GBTC has diverged so far because it doesn't have a public creation/redemption mechanism. Matt Levine briefly touched on this recently: https://www.bloomberg.com/opinion/articles/2024-01-04/put-th...

Re: SEC has not approved Bitcoin ETFs [fixed]

#402

Post by Forgeties79 »

block_dagger wrote: post #398
paulryanrogers wrote: post #291

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Maybe a bespoke (mostly) decentralized implementation that requires more power than mid-sized countries isn't worth it; especially if it's throughput is 7 TPS.

How much power does the existing system of mining, storage, minting, accounting, etc cost? Let’s compare.

You know, I hear this repeated a lot, but I never see anyone put up numbers. I would be very curious to see your math.

Re: SEC has not approved Bitcoin ETFs [fixed]

#403

Post by __MatrixMan__ »

barnabee wrote: post #320
moose_man wrote: post #211

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Crypto is a scam (including Bitcoin) anybody treating it otherwise is overly credulous or in on the scam. Maybe it started out with better intentions but it is irredeemable.

It’s more important to have an unstoppable digital store of value than to stop people getting scammed. Sure would be nice to have fewer scammers, and we should try. I, too, detest many of the actors in the space, the whole number-go-up get-rich-quick culture, and much more. But it’s a sideshow. The reality is I’m not giving up digital assets I completely control (preferably private ones) any more than I’m giving up s…

What makes you think that the kids of tomorrow are going to give a damn about today's notions of what's valuable? Using an unstoppable ledger doesn't make the underlying values any more legitimate than they were before.

I do think that creating a censorship resistant place for data is more important than preventing people from being scammed, but when I think about what ought to go there, I come up with nothing so status-quo-preserving as abstractions that ensure the continuity of asset ownership. It's like you hate banks so much that you went and built one just to show-em.

Re: SEC has not approved Bitcoin ETFs [fixed]

#405

Post by zikduruqe »

wslh wrote: post #315
neilv wrote: post #226

Why do government agencies even have accounts on proprietary walled-garden online platforms? Those are for purposes like celebrity publicists, influencer brand promotion, disreputable mob behavior, and astroturfing. The SEC doesn't need brand promotion, nor to be caught up in nastiness like pervades X/Twitter. The SEC already has the authority, they do their job with it, and presumably they value respectability. Earl…

My two cents: they should cryptographically sign their messages in other platforms. There is enough length in Twitter now. I think the SEC is really responsible for not protecting investors in this case.

>they should cryptographically sign their messages in other platforms

Like a Nostr account?

Re: SEC has not approved Bitcoin ETFs [fixed]

#406

Post by vkou »

happytiger wrote: post #213
QuantumGood wrote: post #158

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Barely makes an impression in the parade of crime that is web3isgoinggreat.com/

It’s such a reasonable thing to expect any level of hacking. Consider the idea that w3 is the transition of assets into literal Internet money. We digitized wealth and w3 concentrated those supplies into readily available large quantity targets. The idea that there would be anything but a massive acceleration of crime and fraud as a result of the digitization of actual money is actually hilarious. It’s a fact that No…

> It’s a fact that North Korea relies on hacking it for funding critical imports at this point…

A fact? What are the #s that they are bringing in from hacking, versus the $4.8 billion/year they bring in from exports to China/Africa?

Re: SEC has not approved Bitcoin ETFs [fixed]

#407

Post by [deleted] »

photonthug wrote: post #380
riversflow wrote: post #270

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Fraud is the fault of the one being impersonated now?

For people who are victims of identity theft, of course not, but for organizations or governments? Yes, clearly yes. Let's make sure that the burden of securing operations generally stays with, you know, the folks that have staff and budgets.

[deleted]

Re: SEC has not approved Bitcoin ETFs [fixed]

#408

Post by NelsonMinar »

redcobra762 wrote: post #383
neilv wrote: post #226

Why do government agencies even have accounts on proprietary walled-garden online platforms? Those are for purposes like celebrity publicists, influencer brand promotion, disreputable mob behavior, and astroturfing. The SEC doesn't need brand promotion, nor to be caught up in nastiness like pervades X/Twitter. The SEC already has the authority, they do their job with it, and presumably they value respectability. Earl…

There was a time when Twitter did generally seem to be a decent steward of public discourse, and many groups wanted to participate in the conversation. Ironically, that time ended around Oct. 2022.

Twitter under Musk is absolutely not suitable for government communications.

Re: SEC has not approved Bitcoin ETFs [fixed]

#409

Post by vkou »

inhumantsar wrote: post #386
colecut wrote: post #361

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's absolutely the fastest way to send larger sums of money.

and cheapest, especially overseas. but I sincerely doubt the average western crypto hater has ever had to deal with western union or some remittance company taking 30%+ in fees.

Western Union takes 30%+ fees from you? Exactly how much money are you transmitting through them? 5 bucks?

Re: SEC has not approved Bitcoin ETFs [fixed]

#410

Post by thfuran »

block_dagger wrote: post #398
paulryanrogers wrote: post #291

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Maybe a bespoke (mostly) decentralized implementation that requires more power than mid-sized countries isn't worth it; especially if it's throughput is 7 TPS.

How much power does the existing system of mining, storage, minting, accounting, etc cost? Let’s compare.

What percentage of financial transactions even involve coinage?
Post reply on HN